Mitigation in theMitigation in theCoastal ZoneCoastal Zone

Association of Levee Boards of LouisianaAssociation of Levee Boards of Louisiana

Enhancing Consistency with the State’s Master PlanEnhancing Consistency with the State’s Master Plan

Louis Buatt, Assistant SecretaryLouis Buatt, Assistant SecretaryOffice of Coastal ManagementOffice of Coastal ManagementDepartment of Natural ResourcesDepartment of Natural Resources

04/18/2304/18/23 11

04/18/2304/18/23

Mitigation:Mitigation:

All actions taken to avoid, minimize, restore, and All actions taken to avoid, minimize, restore, and compensatecompensate for loss of for loss of wetland ecological values due to an activity.wetland ecological values due to an activity.

Compensatory MitigationCompensatory Mitigation

Compensatory Mitigation:Compensatory Mitigation:

Compensatory mitigation is the replacement, substitution, enhancement or Compensatory mitigation is the replacement, substitution, enhancement or protection of ecological values to offset anticipated losses of wetland protection of ecological values to offset anticipated losses of wetland ecological values caused by a permitted activityecological values caused by a permitted activity..

22

Methods used Quantify Compensatory Mitigation?:Methods used Quantify Compensatory Mitigation?:

(To be addressed later in this presentation)(To be addressed later in this presentation)

Wetland Value Assessment (WVA)Wetland Value Assessment (WVA)

vs.vs.

Modified Charleston Method (MCM)Modified Charleston Method (MCM)

Mitigation Evaluation DocumentMitigation Evaluation Document

04/18/2304/18/23 33

The Mitigation Evaluation Document is a 50+ Page Document that The Mitigation Evaluation Document is a 50+ Page Document that provides the data and information supporting the need for programmatic provides the data and information supporting the need for programmatic change.change.

• Executive SummaryExecutive Summary

• IntroductionIntroductionGoals and ObjectivesGoals and ObjectivesOverview of the ProgramOverview of the ProgramIndividual Mitigation Project Option EvaluationIndividual Mitigation Project Option EvaluationMitigation Banking Option EvaluationMitigation Banking Option EvaluationIn-Lieu-Fee Mitigation Option EvaluationIn-Lieu-Fee Mitigation Option EvaluationSummary of the Evaluation of all Mitigation OptionsSummary of the Evaluation of all Mitigation Options

• Appendix A – Process Appendix to the Evaluation of Mitigation ProgramAppendix A – Process Appendix to the Evaluation of Mitigation Program• Appendix B – Summary of Recommendations for Programmatic ImprovementAppendix B – Summary of Recommendations for Programmatic Improvement• Appendix C – Charts, Figures and ImagesAppendix C – Charts, Figures and Images

Why was the Evaluation Necessary?Why was the Evaluation Necessary?

04/18/2304/18/23 44

• Louisiana is a Working Coast that is currently in aLouisiana is a Working Coast that is currently in astate of crisis due to coastal land loss.state of crisis due to coastal land loss.

• The results of the hurricanes of 2005 changed the ‘status-The results of the hurricanes of 2005 changed the ‘status-quo’ for the Louisiana Coast leading to integrated coastal quo’ for the Louisiana Coast leading to integrated coastal protection and restoration efforts.protection and restoration efforts.

• The State has no resources to waste – mitigation efforts The State has no resources to waste – mitigation efforts should be optimized to enhance sustainability and further should be optimized to enhance sustainability and further compliment ongoing coastal protection and restoration.compliment ongoing coastal protection and restoration.

• Modification to Current Mitigation Program is in order to Modification to Current Mitigation Program is in order to better compliment the State’s Master Plan and become a more better compliment the State’s Master Plan and become a more effective programmatic tool.effective programmatic tool.

IMPORTANCE OF COAST TO STATE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF COAST TO STATE AND THE NATION:NATION:

Coastal PopulationCoastal Population: over 2 million residents: over 2 million residents

Maritime/PortsMaritime/Ports: estimated $35 billion annually: estimated $35 billion annually nearly 300,000 jobsnearly 300,000 jobs

FisheriesFisheries: nearly $3 billion annually: nearly $3 billion annually

EnergyEnergy: over $70 billion annually: over $70 billion annually 325,000 jobs325,000 jobs Increase of $1 per barrel = $11 million state budgetIncrease of $1 per barrel = $11 million state budget

LOUISIANA’S COASTLOUISIANA’S COAST

55

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE:NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE:PORTS-CARGOPORTS-CARGO

Top tonnage port in the nation

Five of the top 15 tonnage ports in the US

Largest cargo port complex in the world

Over 30 states depend upon Louisiana’s ports for imports and exports…..

photo LA DOTD

“Direct impacts from waterway related employment generate $3.8 billion in earnings and $22 billion in output, approximately 13% of the state’s gross domestic product.”

“One in seven jobs in the state are waterway dependent.”

LOUISIANA’S WATERWAYSLOUISIANA’S WATERWAYS

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE:NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE:FISHERIESFISHERIES

Top producer in fisheries in the Lower 48 States

Top producer of oysters

Top producer of blue crabs

Top producer of crawfish

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE:ENERGY

Top producer of domestic oil

Top domestic reserves of oil and gas

Top producer of offshore oil

Top producer of offshore gas

Top producer of offshore revenues for US Treasury

IMPORTANCE OF THE ESTUARYIMPORTANCE OF THE ESTUARY The deltaic estuary is critical habitat for countless The deltaic estuary is critical habitat for countless species of mammals and fish. The coast is home to species of mammals and fish. The coast is home to many threatened or endangered species.many threatened or endangered species.

The marshes and coastal forests serve a key role in The marshes and coastal forests serve a key role in regard to storm surge reduction.regard to storm surge reduction.

The estuary filters water by removing sediments, The estuary filters water by removing sediments, nutrients, metals and many forms of pollutants.nutrients, metals and many forms of pollutants.

These wetlands serve important recreational and These wetlands serve important recreational and cultural functions.cultural functions.

1414

The Louisiana The Louisiana Coast is the Coast is the

Lifeblood of the Lifeblood of the State and NationState and Nation

COASTAL LAND LOSS

1616

Responding to the CrisisResponding to the Crisis

Long term commitment to coastal Long term commitment to coastal protection and restoration is vital to ensure protection and restoration is vital to ensure the sustainability of the coast and the way the sustainability of the coast and the way

of life of its residentsof life of its residents

1818

State Master PlanState Master Plan The 2007 State Master Plan provided a conceptual The 2007 State Master Plan provided a conceptual

vision of a sustainable coast based on the best vision of a sustainable coast based on the best available science and engineering.available science and engineering.

It builds on past efforts and existing programs to It builds on past efforts and existing programs to provide this comprehensive vision.provide this comprehensive vision.

2007 Master Plan has four primary objectives:2007 Master Plan has four primary objectives:

– Reduce risk to communities,Reduce risk to communities,

– Restore sustainability to coastal ecosystem,Restore sustainability to coastal ecosystem,

– Maintain a diverse array of fish and wildlife Maintain a diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, andhabitats, and

– Sustain Louisiana’s unique heritage and culture.Sustain Louisiana’s unique heritage and culture.1919

2012 State Master Plan2012 State Master Plan The 2012 Master Plan is currently being developedThe 2012 Master Plan is currently being developed

This 2012 Master Plan will further enhance on going This 2012 Master Plan will further enhance on going efforts and vision of the coastefforts and vision of the coast

Specifically, the 2012 Master Plan will:Specifically, the 2012 Master Plan will:

- Define a spatially explicit vision for a sustainable coast.- Define a spatially explicit vision for a sustainable coast.

- Identify specific restoration and hurricane protection - Identify specific restoration and hurricane protection projects.projects.

- Define priorities for implementation to ultimately achieve - Define priorities for implementation to ultimately achieve the State’s vision.the State’s vision.

This mitigation evaluation effort and future mitigation This mitigation evaluation effort and future mitigation program will be tailored to compliment this more refined program will be tailored to compliment this more refined plan.plan. 2020

Responding to the Devastation and Land Responding to the Devastation and Land Loss CrisisLoss Crisis

Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Louisiana ramped up Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Louisiana ramped up long term commitment to coastal protection and restoration.long term commitment to coastal protection and restoration.

2009:2009:– OCM Began Coastal Zone Boundary StudyOCM Began Coastal Zone Boundary Study– OCM denies consistency and challenges “status quo” of USACE OCM denies consistency and challenges “status quo” of USACE

dredging and disposal activities of Lower MS River Maintenance dredging and disposal activities of Lower MS River Maintenance OperationsOperations

– OCM Implemented New Beneficial Use RegulationsOCM Implemented New Beneficial Use Regulations– OCM Began Evaluation of Mitigation Program for Consistency with OCM Began Evaluation of Mitigation Program for Consistency with

Master PlanMaster Plan 2010:2010:

– OCM again denies consistency and challenges “status quo” of OCM again denies consistency and challenges “status quo” of USACE dredging and disposal activities of Lower MS River USACE dredging and disposal activities of Lower MS River Maintenance OperationsMaintenance Operations

– OCM Completes the Evaluation of Mitigation Program and Makes OCM Completes the Evaluation of Mitigation Program and Makes Recommendations for Increased Consistency with Master PlanRecommendations for Increased Consistency with Master Plan

2222

Broad Goals and Objectives of the Broad Goals and Objectives of the Mitigation Program:Mitigation Program:

The overall goals and objectives of OCM’s Mitigation The overall goals and objectives of OCM’s Mitigation Program:Program:1.1.Avoid impacts where practicable and otherwise minimize Avoid impacts where practicable and otherwise minimize adverse impacts identified in the permit review process.adverse impacts identified in the permit review process.2.2.Restore impacted sites as appropriate.Restore impacted sites as appropriate.3.3.Accurately quantify anticipated unavoidable wetland Accurately quantify anticipated unavoidable wetland ecological value losses.ecological value losses.4.4.Make available reasonable and practicable mitigation Make available reasonable and practicable mitigation options and establish mitigation projects.options and establish mitigation projects.5.5.Achieve No Net Loss of Coastal Wetlands due to Achieve No Net Loss of Coastal Wetlands due to permitted activities.permitted activities. 

04/18/2304/18/23 2323

Goals and Objectives Relative to OptionsGoals and Objectives Relative to Optionsfor Mitigation:for Mitigation:

1.1.Obtain appropriate, sufficient and quality compensatory mitigation to the Obtain appropriate, sufficient and quality compensatory mitigation to the impacted coastal ecosystem where feasible and practicable. Achieve no net impacted coastal ecosystem where feasible and practicable. Achieve no net loss of wetlands due to permitted activities.loss of wetlands due to permitted activities.2.2.Properly track and monitor mitigation projects, mitigation banks and in-lieu-Properly track and monitor mitigation projects, mitigation banks and in-lieu-fee projects. Monitoring and tracking should not be a burden on public fee projects. Monitoring and tracking should not be a burden on public resources.resources.3.3.Mitigation in coastal Louisiana must be sustainable and provide adequate Mitigation in coastal Louisiana must be sustainable and provide adequate and meaningful coastal ecosystem restoration.and meaningful coastal ecosystem restoration.4.4.Integrate and coordinate mitigation to support State’s overall goal of coastal Integrate and coordinate mitigation to support State’s overall goal of coastal ecosystem restoration. Mitigation should be consistent with the State’s ecosystem restoration. Mitigation should be consistent with the State’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast. The State must Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast. The State must promote a sustainable coastal ecosystem by harnessing the processes of the promote a sustainable coastal ecosystem by harnessing the processes of the natural system. natural system. 

04/18/2304/18/23 2424

The State’s Current Mitigation Program:The State’s Current Mitigation Program:

CHAPTER 7, TITLE 43 – Coastal Management RegulationsCHAPTER 7, TITLE 43 – Coastal Management Regulations

Rules for Selecting Compensatory Mitigation, §724.J:Rules for Selecting Compensatory Mitigation, §724.J:(From 1996)(From 1996)

The Three Mitigation Options in Current Priority Order:The Three Mitigation Options in Current Priority Order:

1.1.Individual Mitigation Measure - Project on Landowner(s) PropertyIndividual Mitigation Measure - Project on Landowner(s) Property

2.2.Mitigation Banks - Acquire CreditsMitigation Banks - Acquire Credits

3.3.In-Lieu-Fee Option - Monetary Contribution to Mitigation Trust FundIn-Lieu-Fee Option - Monetary Contribution to Mitigation Trust Fund

04/18/2304/18/23 2525

The Current Federal Mitigation Program:The Current Federal Mitigation Program:

Wetland Regulations - Clean Water Act section 404Wetland Regulations - Clean Water Act section 404And Rivers and Harbors Act section 10And Rivers and Harbors Act section 10

New 2008 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses to Aquatic New 2008 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses to Aquatic Resources, 40 CFR Part 230; §332.3 General compensatory Resources, 40 CFR Part 230; §332.3 General compensatory mitigation requirements:mitigation requirements:

The Compensatory Mitigation Options in Priority Order:The Compensatory Mitigation Options in Priority Order:

1.1.Mitigation Banks CreditsMitigation Banks Credits

2.2.In-Lieu-Fee ProgramsIn-Lieu-Fee Programs

3.3.Permitee Responsible Mitigation under a Watershed ApproachPermitee Responsible Mitigation under a Watershed Approach

These rules apply to all “wetlands” - in These rules apply to all “wetlands” - in Montana, Wyoming & Coastal Louisiana?Montana, Wyoming & Coastal Louisiana?

04/18/2304/18/23 2626

04/18/2304/18/23

Mitigation Options Required byMitigation Options Required byState Law:State Law:

1.1.Individual Mitigation ProjectsIndividual Mitigation Projects

2.2.Mitigation BanksMitigation Banks

3.3.In-Lieu Fee ContributionIn-Lieu Fee Contribution

2727

04/18/2304/18/23

Individual Mitigation ProjectsIndividual Mitigation Projects

2828

• Individual Mitigation Projects present challenges with regard to Individual Mitigation Projects present challenges with regard to sustainability and efficient resource allocation in Coastal Louisiana.sustainability and efficient resource allocation in Coastal Louisiana.

• PRO’s PRO’s Individual Projects are desirable because: Individual Projects are desirable because:- Projects meet the requirement for No Net Loss for Permitted Activities- Projects meet the requirement for No Net Loss for Permitted Activities

- Benefits often realized where impacts occur- Benefits often realized where impacts occur

• CON’s CON’s Individual Projects are not desirable because: Individual Projects are not desirable because:-Individual Projects have questionable Sustainability-Individual Projects have questionable Sustainability

- Monitoring and accounting of these projects is a drain on public resources- Monitoring and accounting of these projects is a drain on public resources

- In the past, projects have not been located properly to meet the goals and - In the past, projects have not been located properly to meet the goals and objectives of the State’s Master Plan and Mitigation Programobjectives of the State’s Master Plan and Mitigation Program

- These individual projects do not address the requirement for integrated - These individual projects do not address the requirement for integrated hurricane protection and coastal ecosystem restoration.hurricane protection and coastal ecosystem restoration.

04/18/2304/18/23

Mitigation Banks – Part of the SolutionMitigation Banks – Part of the Solution

3131

• Mitigation Banking can be a viable option for mitigation in Coastal LouisianaMitigation Banking can be a viable option for mitigation in Coastal Louisiana

• PRO’s PRO’s Mitigation Banks are desirable because:Mitigation Banks are desirable because:

- Banks meet the requirement for No Net Loss for Permitted Activities- Banks meet the requirement for No Net Loss for Permitted Activities

- Monitoring and accounting of the banks is not a drain on public resources- Monitoring and accounting of the banks is not a drain on public resources

- Banks have the ability to be sustainable once planted and hydrology restored- Banks have the ability to be sustainable once planted and hydrology restored

• CON’sCON’s Mitigation Banks are not desirable because: Mitigation Banks are not desirable because:

- Currently banks are not being located to meet the objectives of the - Currently banks are not being located to meet the objectives of the State’s Master PlanState’s Master Plan

04/18/2304/18/23

Location of Mitigation BanksLocation of Mitigation Banks

3232

ACTIVE MITIGATION BANKS:ACTIVE MITIGATION BANKS:AVAILABLE HABITAT ACREAGES BYAVAILABLE HABITAT ACREAGES BY

HYDROLOGIC BASINHYDROLOGIC BASINas of April 20, 2011as of April 20, 2011

Mitigation Bank Acreage Authorized for Use by LDNR-OCM

04/18/2304/18/23

Mitigation Banks –The Cost of Mitigation inMitigation Banks –The Cost of Mitigation inCoastal Area:Coastal Area:

3535

PRICE PER ACRE (BASED ON EQUAL MITIGATION POTENTIALS)PRICE PER ACRE (BASED ON EQUAL MITIGATION POTENTIALS)

• Bottomland HardwoodsBottomland Hardwoods $ 17,582 to $ 53,774/acre$ 17,582 to $ 53,774/acre

• Fresh SwampFresh Swamp $ 21,951 to $ 70,000/acre$ 21,951 to $ 70,000/acre

• Fresh/Intermediate MarshFresh/Intermediate Marsh $ 45,000/acre$ 45,000/acre

• Brackish/Salt MarshBrackish/Salt Marsh $ 80,000/acre$ 80,000/acre

04/18/2304/18/23

Recent Mitigation Costs for Levee Reaches in theRecent Mitigation Costs for Levee Reaches in theCoastal Area:Coastal Area:

3636

Ward 7 LeveeWard 7 Levee• Construction Cost: Construction Cost: $ 12.5 Million$ 12.5 Million• Mitigation Cost: Mitigation Cost: $ 5.7 Million$ 5.7 Million 31% of the Total31% of the Total

Project CostProject CostReach H LeveeReach H Levee• Construction Cost: Construction Cost: $ 17 Million$ 17 Million• Mitigation Cost:Mitigation Cost: $ 30 Million$ 30 Million 64% of the Total64% of the Total

Project CostProject CostReach F LeveeReach F Levee• Construction Cost:Construction Cost: $ 25 Million$ 25 Million• Mitigation Cost:Mitigation Cost: $ 9 Million$ 9 Million 26% of the Total26% of the Total

Project CostProject Cost

04/18/2304/18/23

Mitigation Banks –The Cost of Mitigation inMitigation Banks –The Cost of Mitigation inCoastal AreaCoastal Area

3737

Factors that affect the cost of mitigation:Factors that affect the cost of mitigation:

1.1.Long-term maintenance obligationsLong-term maintenance obligations

2.2.Monitoring obligations required of the mitigation bankMonitoring obligations required of the mitigation bank

3.3.Reporting requirements associated with the mitigation bankReporting requirements associated with the mitigation bank

4.4.Legal and conservation easement costsLegal and conservation easement costs

5.5.Property acquisition costs and profit marginProperty acquisition costs and profit margin

6.6.The time and costs associated with Interagency Review Team (IRT) review:The time and costs associated with Interagency Review Team (IRT) review:- Limited pre-proposal guidance, uncertain outcome and lack of - Limited pre-proposal guidance, uncertain outcome and lack of

predictabilitypredictability- Constantly changing requirements, lack of promulgated rules for some - Constantly changing requirements, lack of promulgated rules for some

facetsfacets- Uncertainty and lack of predictability in the financial assessment to - Uncertainty and lack of predictability in the financial assessment to

determine credits generateddetermine credits generated

04/18/2304/18/23

Lack of Mitigation Banks in Coastal AreaLack of Mitigation Banks in Coastal Area

3838

• Only One (1) Brackish/Salt Marsh Mitigation Bank

• Only One (1) Fresh/Intermediate Marsh Mitigation Bank

• There are No Marsh Mitigation Banks west of the Atchafalaya River

• There are limited Swamp and Bottomland Hardwood Mitigation Banks in most coastal basins and lack of competition.

04/18/2304/18/23

How Impacts have been Mitigated:How Impacts have been Mitigated:

3939

Type of Mitigation:Type of Mitigation: % Occurrence:% Occurrence: % Acres:% Acres:

1.1.Individual ProjectsIndividual Projects 22%22% 50%50%

2.2.Mitigation BanksMitigation Banks 40%40% 36%36%

3.3.In-Lieu-Fee ContributionsIn-Lieu-Fee Contributions 38%38% 14%14%

Reasons why we need to reconsider the current arbitrary prioritization hierarchy for Reasons why we need to reconsider the current arbitrary prioritization hierarchy for mitigation:mitigation:

•The current hierarchy hinders important public works projects that protect the coast and our The current hierarchy hinders important public works projects that protect the coast and our citizens.citizens.

•The current hierarchy hinders the coastal economy that is the life blood of Louisiana.The current hierarchy hinders the coastal economy that is the life blood of Louisiana.

•We do not have resources to waste, we must apply these resources to work in concert with the We do not have resources to waste, we must apply these resources to work in concert with the State’s Master Plan to protect our coast, our citizens and our economy.State’s Master Plan to protect our coast, our citizens and our economy.

04/18/2304/18/23

In-Lieu-Fee Program Mitigation – Part of the Solution In-Lieu-Fee Program Mitigation – Part of the Solution

4040

• In-Lieu-Fee is an option for mitigation in Coastal LouisianaIn-Lieu-Fee is an option for mitigation in Coastal Louisiana

• PRO’s PRO’s In-Lieu-Fee Option is desirable because:In-Lieu-Fee Option is desirable because:

- Projects meet the requirement for No Net Loss for Permitted Activities- Projects meet the requirement for No Net Loss for Permitted Activities

- Monitoring and accounting of Projects is not a drain on public resources- Monitoring and accounting of Projects is not a drain on public resources

- Projects have proven to be sustainable once planted and hydrology - Projects have proven to be sustainable once planted and hydrology restoredrestored

- Creates more opportunities for mitigation in high risk areas.- Creates more opportunities for mitigation in high risk areas.

- AND projects can be located properly to meet the objective of the State’s - AND projects can be located properly to meet the objective of the State’s Master PlanMaster Plan

• CON’sCON’s None None

Mitigation Contributions and ExpendituresMitigation Contributions and Expenditures(FY 99/00-08/09(FY 99/00-08/09))

04/18/2304/18/23 4141

Images of Point Au Fer Mitigation Fund Project (2007Images of Point Au Fer Mitigation Fund Project (2007))

04/18/2304/18/23 4242

Images of Lake Salvador Shoreline Protection (2001Images of Lake Salvador Shoreline Protection (2001))

04/18/2304/18/23 4343

DNR’s Current In-Lieu Fee ProgramDNR’s Current In-Lieu Fee Program2011 Mitigation Fund Expenditure2011 Mitigation Fund Expenditure

04/18/2304/18/23 4444

Freshwater Bayou Marsh Creation ProjectFreshwater Bayou Marsh Creation Project

$750,000 will be added to the Project Budget to fund 15 Acres$750,000 will be added to the Project Budget to fund 15 Acresof additional marsh creation work. Construction: Summer 2011of additional marsh creation work. Construction: Summer 2011

4545

MODIFIED CHARLESTON METHODMODIFIED CHARLESTON METHOD(MCM)(MCM)

vs.vs.

WETLAND VALUE ASSESSMENTWETLAND VALUE ASSESSMENT(WVA)(WVA)

04/18/2304/18/23

4646

The MCM is the functional assessment model The MCM is the functional assessment model developed to resolve interagency concerns that:developed to resolve interagency concerns that:

In general, applicants are not mitigating enough.In general, applicants are not mitigating enough.

Results from the WVA and best professional Results from the WVA and best professional judgment are not consistent among users.judgment are not consistent among users.

MODIFIED CHARLESTON METHODMODIFIED CHARLESTON METHOD(MCM)(MCM)

04/18/2304/18/23

4747

WETLAND VALUE ASSESSMENT WETLAND VALUE ASSESSMENT (WVA)(WVA)

04/18/2304/18/23

• The WVA is OCM’s habitat evaluation tool which quantifies impacts and The WVA is OCM’s habitat evaluation tool which quantifies impacts and benefits to wetlands.benefits to wetlands.

• The WVA incorporates information from a field investigation, The WVA incorporates information from a field investigation, mapping/GIS analysis and historical records and quantifies impacts and mapping/GIS analysis and historical records and quantifies impacts and assess the amount of mitigation required. Real data parameters are used assess the amount of mitigation required. Real data parameters are used as model inputs in the WVA.as model inputs in the WVA.

• The WVA method was originally developed for wetland restoration and The WVA method was originally developed for wetland restoration and planning projects in coastal Louisiana, and is a tool used to evaluate planning projects in coastal Louisiana, and is a tool used to evaluate potential changes in ecosystem benefits.potential changes in ecosystem benefits.

• Because the WVA is fairly complicated, it does not always provide a Because the WVA is fairly complicated, it does not always provide a timely, predictable, and transparent tool for all parties to evaluate the timely, predictable, and transparent tool for all parties to evaluate the options available in order to make economic decisions regarding options available in order to make economic decisions regarding proposed projects.proposed projects.

Number P# Impact Acres Habitat Type WVA Amount MCM Amount Bank Notes

1 P20091182 36.2 BLH 45.5 103.2 U B Folse Size of the Project

2 P20080494 0.1 BLH 0.4 0.4 High Point Low Bank M.P.

3 P20081394 7.8 BLH 28.8 29.4 High Point Low Bank M.P.

4 P20080360 4.97 BLH 24 21.3 High Point Low Bank M.P.

5 P20101606 1.5 Swamp 8.3 3.1 High Point Low Bank M.P.

8 P20100526 0.2 BLH 0.2 0.5 U B Folse WVA accounted for marginal habitat

6 P20090207 96.4 Fresh Marsh 106.1 321 Lake Long Size of the Project

7 P20100415 0.02 Fresh Marsh 0.1 0.1 Lake Long Very Small Impact

9 P20100213 0.71 Inter. Marsh 0.71 1.6 Chef Menteur High factor for cumm impacts (levee)

10 P20090807 1.15 Fresh Marsh 1.1 3.7 Lake Long Typical Marsh Example of 2.5:1 Ratio

11 P20091165 0.03 Fresh Marsh 0.1 0.1 Lake Long Very Small Impact

12 P20070789 0.87 Salt Marsh 0.87 2.1 Chef Menteur Typical Marsh Example of 2.5:1 Ratio

13 20090421 2.81 Salt Marsh 2.5 6.6 Chef Menteur Typical Marsh Example of 2.5:1 Ratio

The NumbersThe Numbers

4949

MODIFIED CHARLESTON METHODMODIFIED CHARLESTON METHOD(MCM) (MCM)

04/18/2304/18/23

• The MCM and the WVA evaluate mitigation requirements The MCM and the WVA evaluate mitigation requirements for fresh swamp and bottomland hardwood at a very similar for fresh swamp and bottomland hardwood at a very similar value. In general, the WVA requires only slightly higher value. In general, the WVA requires only slightly higher mitigation for these two habitat types.mitigation for these two habitat types.

• The MCM requires significantly higher compensatory The MCM requires significantly higher compensatory mitigation for marsh impacts. The approximate ratio is 2.5:1.mitigation for marsh impacts. The approximate ratio is 2.5:1.

• In general, very small impacts (<0.2 acre impacts) are In general, very small impacts (<0.2 acre impacts) are evaluated very similarly between the MCM and WVA.evaluated very similarly between the MCM and WVA.

5050

MODIFIED CHARLESTON METHODMODIFIED CHARLESTON METHOD(MCM) SUMMARY(MCM) SUMMARY

04/18/2304/18/23

• Historically, the USACE has used “Best Professional Historically, the USACE has used “Best Professional Judgment” to assess mitigation quantities.Judgment” to assess mitigation quantities.

• The MCM is the USACE’sThe MCM is the USACE’s newly proposed method of newly proposed method of assessing adverse impacts and compensation requirements. assessing adverse impacts and compensation requirements.

• The New Orleans District began using the MCM on May 1stThe New Orleans District began using the MCM on May 1st..

• OCM is supportive of the USACE’s decision to implement the OCM is supportive of the USACE’s decision to implement the MCM at this time. The MCM will provide the regulatory MCM at this time. The MCM will provide the regulatory community with a habitat assessment tool that is quick, efficient, community with a habitat assessment tool that is quick, efficient, transparent and predictable.transparent and predictable.

04/18/2304/18/23

• Coastal Population: over 2 Million ResidentsCoastal Population: over 2 Million Residents

• Coastal Fisheries: Top Fisheries Producer in Lower 48, Over Coastal Fisheries: Top Fisheries Producer in Lower 48, Over $3 Billion Annually$3 Billion Annually

• Coastal Energy: Top Producer of Domestic Oil, Over $70 Coastal Energy: Top Producer of Domestic Oil, Over $70 Billion AnnuallyBillion Annually

• Coastal Ports: Largest Port Complex in the World, $35 Billion Coastal Ports: Largest Port Complex in the World, $35 Billion AnnuallyAnnually

• Louisiana’s Unique Heritage and Culture – No $$$Louisiana’s Unique Heritage and Culture – No $$$

Presentation Summary-Presentation Summary-Importance of the Louisiana Coast:Importance of the Louisiana Coast:

5151

04/18/2304/18/23

• The Hurricanes of 2005 changed the “Status-Quo”The Hurricanes of 2005 changed the “Status-Quo”

• Louisiana has lost 2,300 mi.Louisiana has lost 2,300 mi.22 of land loss since the 1930’s of land loss since the 1930’s

• Between 1990 and 2000, wetland loss was approx. 24 mi.Between 1990 and 2000, wetland loss was approx. 24 mi.22 per yearper year

• Hurricanes Katrina and Rita transformed 382 mi.Hurricanes Katrina and Rita transformed 382 mi.22 of marsh of marsh to open water in Coastal Louisianato open water in Coastal Louisiana

• The Master Plan – the State makes long term commitment to The Master Plan – the State makes long term commitment to integrated coastal protection and coastal ecosystem integrated coastal protection and coastal ecosystem restoration.restoration.

Presentation Summary-Presentation Summary-Coast in Crisis:Coast in Crisis:

5252

04/18/2304/18/23

• There are not enough options for mitigation available.There are not enough options for mitigation available.

• Individual Mitigation Projects as currently implemented are Individual Mitigation Projects as currently implemented are not desirable, they are a drain on resources, are not not desirable, they are a drain on resources, are not sustainable and do not contribute to integrated coastal sustainable and do not contribute to integrated coastal protection and ecosystem restorationprotection and ecosystem restoration

• Mitigation Banks are part of the solution but the banks need Mitigation Banks are part of the solution but the banks need to be influenced to locate where they are more consistent with to be influenced to locate where they are more consistent with the goals and objectives of the State’s Master Planthe goals and objectives of the State’s Master Plan

• There is a strong need for a more robust and flexible in-lieu-There is a strong need for a more robust and flexible in-lieu-fee mitigation option.fee mitigation option.

Presentation Summary-Presentation Summary-Results of the Evaluation:Results of the Evaluation:

5353

04/18/2304/18/23

• Challenge the ‘status quo’ of existing arbitrary Federal Challenge the ‘status quo’ of existing arbitrary Federal regulatory priorities for mitigating in “coastal wetlands”.regulatory priorities for mitigating in “coastal wetlands”.

• Redirect the State’s efforts and thereby enhance Redirect the State’s efforts and thereby enhance sustainability and Master Plan objectives.sustainability and Master Plan objectives.

• No net loss is important, but its not enough in coastal No net loss is important, but its not enough in coastal Louisiana. This is not Wyoming, Montana or Nebraska.Louisiana. This is not Wyoming, Montana or Nebraska.

• Create more flexible options for mitigation and restructure Create more flexible options for mitigation and restructure the current priorities regarding mitigation options.the current priorities regarding mitigation options.

Presentation Summary-Presentation Summary-Recommendations:Recommendations:

5454

04/18/2304/18/23

Presentation Summary-Presentation Summary-Recommendations:Recommendations:

5555

• Allow the use of the Individual Mitigation Projects only when proven to be Allow the use of the Individual Mitigation Projects only when proven to be sustainable and contribute to integrated coastal protection and ecosystem sustainable and contribute to integrated coastal protection and ecosystem restoration.restoration.

• Work with the Federal Agencies and the Mitigation Banking Community to Work with the Federal Agencies and the Mitigation Banking Community to locate where they are more consistent with the goals and objectives of the locate where they are more consistent with the goals and objectives of the State’s Master Plan.State’s Master Plan.

• Implement the use of a robust State operated in-lieu-fee program to Implement the use of a robust State operated in-lieu-fee program to increase sustainability and enhance Master Plan implementation, including increase sustainability and enhance Master Plan implementation, including comprehensive coastal protection and ecosystem restoration.comprehensive coastal protection and ecosystem restoration.

• Make use of the in-lieu-fee mitigation option to add flexibility and to provide Make use of the in-lieu-fee mitigation option to add flexibility and to provide options for critical public works and economic development projects.options for critical public works and economic development projects.

04/18/2304/18/23

• Legislative, Regulatory and Policy modifications to the Legislative, Regulatory and Policy modifications to the current mitigation program are necessary to enhance the current mitigation program are necessary to enhance the State’s Mitigation Program.State’s Mitigation Program.

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other Federal The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other Federal Regulatory Agencies must acknowledge that Rules for Regulatory Agencies must acknowledge that Rules for Mitigation in Wyoming, Montana and Nebraska are not Mitigation in Wyoming, Montana and Nebraska are not appropriate in coastal Louisiana and make necessary appropriate in coastal Louisiana and make necessary adjustments that address the dynamics of our fragile coast.adjustments that address the dynamics of our fragile coast.

• Federal Legislative and Regulatory change may be required.Federal Legislative and Regulatory change may be required.

• No resources to waste, mitigation must be part of the overall No resources to waste, mitigation must be part of the overall solution to address the coastal crisis.solution to address the coastal crisis.

Presentation Summary-Presentation Summary-Actions to Implement Change:Actions to Implement Change:

5656